Issue 2, Volume 1
Friday June 10, 2011
Our On The Streets segment this week is a photo of a 1968 GTO in the Whyte Ave Southpark GM lot. It's obviously there to attract some attention, just as Don Wheaton's warehouse is a fantastic gallery of rare and expensive vehicles that might just get you to buy a Cruze. The old neon lights and the crazy dealership flags that still exist on Wheaton and Southpark got me thinking about how much our city changes, and not always for the best. This car stands here as a reminder of what the lot looked like in '68. At that time there weren't that many car dealerships to go to. I was once helping my friend look for a new vehicle, and had a discussion with a salesman who was uncertain about his future. "We have a new website up if you want to take a look. Eventually going online will pretty much replace us in the used car department. Thirty years ago, you made friends with your car salesman and came back to see him if you had a good relationship with him. Also people only drove Chevys or only drove Fords. Now people will go pretty much to anyone who will either finance them or give them the lowest payments." That doesn't always mean the best or most personable service. I was pretty happy with my service at Healy Ford. Of course, they haven't been owned by the Healys in a good long time. The dealership picked up and moved to Sherwood Park and became Sherwood Ford, now meaning if I want to get my annual maintenance I have to drive all the way out there, when I used to be very close do their downtown location. After it closed, they tossed a lot of stuff out. At my friend's barbecue, me and another gentleman jumped into their commercial dumpsters and found a few cool remnants of the old times. I'm not going to say which signs I have and where I keep them, but let's just say they're super old, and from Ford's oldest dealership, that's pretty cool. Healy actually moved to the 103rd street location in 1963, after abandoning the lot on Jasper and 105th. Their old showroom is now the Boston Pizza downtown location, and their old lot is just a parking lot. Many people on Connect To Edmonton mourn the loss of the downtown dealership for possibly more downtown charge parking, which is unsightly. For more about city planning, see the feature below.
The 1968 GTO above was the first year of the 'endura' cars - called that for the 'endura' plastic/resin front nose. You can tell the 1968 from 1969 most easily by the grille. 1969 GTO's have a horizontal slat that runs about in the middle of the grille on each of the two grille divisions. In 1968 you could have gone to Southpark and ordered a GTO (GM's A-Body) with either a 3 speed auto, or a 4 speed manual. You could have had a 400 cubic inch V8, or the massive '455 Super Duty' 455 cubic inch engine. You could have also had white-wall radial tires at no extra charge, but there are rumors that very few cars came with this option, as B.F. Goodrich had some sort of manufacturing problem. So the majority of the cars came with bias ply tires. Pontiac had some interesting options, such as the hood mounted tachometer, or the 'endura delete' option, which would have given you the unholy looking iron mask sort of front (it was all chromed) that appeared on the LeMans in 1968. Basically the same car without the whole performance persona, and the ability to be a 4 door sedan, convertible or station wagon. Also it didn't have the same big block options, the smallest was a 3.5L I6 (230 cubes) and the largest was GM's old reliable 350 V8. Pontiac is somewhat special to the Canadian heritage. Pontiac insisted on rebadging cars to sell only to the Canadian market. So for example, unlike our southern neighbors, you could order a Pontiac Acadian. It was the Pontiac version of the Chevrolet II Nova, and there was also an A-body Pontiac Beaumont, which was a Chevrolet Chevelle rebadged. The name was supposedly to help sell the Canadian built cars to Canadians, by giving them Canadian names, and by offering packages supposedly more in tune with Canadian buyers. My neighbor has a purple Beaumont that looks like it drove here straight from 1976, with purple flecked paint and machined centerline wheels. He likes to rev it a lot. We have a lot of cars over here on this side of the street that can rev right back at him.
Florida To Screen Welfare Recipients - Causes Canadians To Hate Own System
Florida passed legislation, effective 1 July 2011 that will see welfare recipients need to be drug tested (or piss tested) just like Minnesota Vikings players, in order to receive their checks. I say 'checks' because we're talking about an American issue. The recipients will have to pay in advance to get their money, but will be reimbursed as long as they pass.
Why does this matter to me? Well it matters to all of us. Although some have called the bill 'profiling' because of the vast amount of certain cultural groups on welfare, it seems more just that taxpayers don't want their money going to pay for someone else's contraband. And can we blame them?
This spawned an all out debate on one of my friend's facebook wall. She said we should do something like this in Canada. In fact, while Florida is making it harder to get aid money, the NDP successfully voted in, last term, to decrease EI waiting times, ensuring individuals get money faster. EI is a bad example however, because your entitlement amount and duration are based on what you've paid into it. So you if you are effectively snorting or rolling and smoking your EI cheques (CDN issue CDN spelling) then you might be rolling and smoking your own contribution. I couldn't, however, believe the brazen and arrogant attitudes of some individuals on the wall. "I can think of a bunch of friends I wouldn't have to pay for." Wrote one person (corrected for spelling and grammar). "We'd be better off doing that here...we all got the same chances in life." (Corrected for spelling and grammar again). I couldn't believe my eyes when I found out that some individuals that had used social programs said they should be abolished. Is it because they found out first hand that Canadians were wasting their money?
HRM Canada reported that the unemployment rate was at 7.1% as of 1 May 2011. That is approximately 2,343,000 Canadians out of work that, as to be considered 'unemployed' should technically have jobs. That is potentially 2.3 million Canadians (think if all of Edmonton plus all of Red Deer were all unemployed) on EI. Approximately 5.1% (as of 2009-2010) of Canadians are on welfare. However, the government of British Columbia reports that 80% of those that leave, do so because they have found a job and do not require social assistance as their new employment income is substantial.
What would 2.3 million Canadians do if they had to piss test before every EI, Welfare, or Subsidy cheque? What if you had to piss test before you got a student loan?
You have to understand that I was shocked not because people were indicating they didn't want social welfare to go to individuals who were using it to buy illegal drugs (not that addiction is an illness or anything) but calling for abolition to all these programs entirely. What would 2.3 million Canadians do without any assistance at all? One of these people indicated they had been both on EI and in subsidized housing. I inquired what he would do if he didn't have that. He replied with 'it was only for a month.' In that month, didn't it help you? 'I would have sold stuff if I needed to get by.' - So in that case you knew you were only going to be on it for exactly a month?
Whilst I applaud this ignorant individual for being able to find himself out of whatever hole he found himself in, the rest of us know that unemployment can happen at any time. What if your union strikes, or you work for a major company that lays off a ton of people during an economic turndown? What if you decide to pursue further education? What if you become injured or sick?
There's no doubt that social assistance is required, and social assistance in Canada is expected; we are a country that employs socialist tendencies. We expect these things to be there for us when we need them, and for the most part, we don't mind paying for them. Mostly, we just don't want that money going to 'some junky' or 'some prostitute' or 'some single crackhead mom who doesn't know what a condom is and keeps pumping out kids.' These aren't things I just made up on the spot.
So do we cancel ALL social assistance? No. Do we piss test people and deny them if they fail? No. Do we piss test people? Maybe.
Social programs can be stimulating to an economy if done right. The old adage about teaching a man to fish? That applies here. Perhaps a person needs assistance to get off drugs and could use employment training. Pay for that with tax dollars, and you have a functional worker that is contributing to the economy and ta-da taxes too, that allows his 'debt' to be repaid while also helping others.
There's only one problem with this. You can have a skilled worker...but you have to have a job to put him in. And there aren't that many. More on this next issue.
Ultimately, social programs need to be monitored for efficiency and efficacy. Could we upgrade in Canada? Sure. But we don't need to deny based on drug screening to know that we could have a better teach-a-man-to-fish system. Of course, with our prisons already being revolving doors and some of our justice system a joke, how do we expect this change to be made? Write your MP, ladies and gentleman, write your MP.
I Have No Editor - Poor City Planning
The I have no editor section is where I rant about something, possibly incoherently, that wouldn't make a real magazine.
Here is an issue that's close to my heart. I was once told, after ranting about the inherent infrastructure problems in YEG, specifically the planning, that I should be happy about where I live or move away. It was from a person who lived in Sherwood Park. Yeah.
I don't think it's wrong to complain or bitch about what's going on in your city, or how poorly your city was planned. If you don't complain...if no one complains, how are things supposed to improve?
Let's talk about the recent Edmonton developments in planning and what Edmonton has up their sleeve, good and bad, as rated by me.
Downtown Arena
A lot of individuals are saying that 'I don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for this thing from any level of government.' Granted, I understand that. But you don't give yourself a lot of credibility when your protest sign reads 'I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN KATSVILLE' and the person who has been investing in Edmonton's name is Katz. First of all, what's wrong with Katz? He's put a ton of his own money into Edmonton. I have had the privilege while taking my nursing prerequisites to pass through the Katz center on campus. It's beautiful. I wish the University was given private money from all wealthy capitalists. Trust me, you'll hate the idea until you're using one of the facilities, and then you'll change your mind. Ultimately though I don't think these people who are protesting understand what's happening here. For one, redeveloping an area such as the area of 107th street isn't just a good idea, it's needed. This has degraded to one of the worst areas in the city. Don't believe me? Drive by 'Milla's pub' on 101st at any time during the day, and you should be able to see Edmonton's Finest overworked. Ultimately there doesn't need to be low-rent districts with a ton of crime. There are ways to redevelop areas so that they are still affordable and don't turn into 'slums' so to speak. But I'm getting off topic here.
Imagine that someone told you that you would pay for part of a house, but the house would be yours, and then they'd rent the house from you. So you pay for a part of the house, and you get to own the whole house, and then you're going to make revenue because the person that helped you pay for it and renovate it is also going to rent it from you. That's the whole idea with the downtown arena. The city gets to keep the arena, and the development that they're partially paying for, and Katz is going to lease it from them.
Let's face it, Edmonton has dropped the ball on a lot of things by stalling. I know people wanted to wait, but when you're saying that "construction costs are going up, and everyone will have to pay more." I get that some people are suspicious that Katz is forcing the city's hand, but we also remember about construction costs related to the 23rd ave overpass. Did USL force the city's hand by increasing material costs? Or did Edmonton just wait to long.
In my view, people who don't want a downtown arena (which isn't just an arena but an entire area redevelopment) DON'T GET IT. Investing in your city for its' own benefit is a good thing. I feel like these are the same people who say that, "that money would be better used on healthcare" not realizing that healthcare is funded not by municipalities, but by the province and federal government.
Bike Path Routes
There's something to be said for on-street bike path routes. I'm beginning to think that 'transportation engineer' is another word for 'moron' just like 'pump attendant' is another word for 'pump jockey' and 'mentally disabled' is another word for 'retarded' and on and on. Apparently Edmonton is getting 16 new bike routes. These are on street bike routes though. So that's kind of like adding a bus route. All it means is that the bus goes down another street. So all this means is they're just painting lines on an existing road that mark it as an on-street bike path. Usually this means that this takes away a certain lane for a certain amount of time during a commute, but not always. If they're wide roads, sometimes it can be a dedicated lane. But if not, it's just some signs and some paint. So how is this a bike path? Isn't it just now basically a promotion to ride your bike on the road? You can do that anyway, it's not illegal. You just have to give hand signals and behave as any other vehicle. You know what we could use? REAL bike paths!
In Conclusion
Mandell has done some great things while in power. But the scariest quote was when he was heard about two weeks ago saying that 'if they don't have the money to do the LRT right - right now - that we would do sections and plug in when we have the money' AHH. WHAT? So isn't that the same kind of thinking that left the transit system the same for 18 years before another stop was added, and like 22 years for Clareview station NOT to be a temporary platform?
New Music
Rarely to I get a chance to actually talk about a local YEG band, or Albertan band, but I have the fantastic chance to talk about one today.
The Souvs are a local group from right here in Edmonton, and sure, I might be a little biased, because I happen to have been introduced to Sarah Martens at a friend's barbecue, and of course, as musicians do, we started talking about music.
Their self-titled release EP (well you can call it Souvs EP) is a 6 song work that, as Sarah put it, was a year in the making.
The initial poppy riffs have a great clean-tonal quality, albeit low-fi, but it will remind you of old Eric's Trip releases, again just cleaner. The lead off It's A Start is a Stars type number with male and female vocals both, but the album builds from there. Rather than just being a one dimensional keyboard/telecaster pop pony, this horse ends up as one of a darker colour. By the time you get to Is Is Is you see the more serious side of the Souvs. That in contrast to Connecting Flight which gives me more of a Tokyo Police Club vibe.
The album is available from their website at:
http://souvs.bandcamp.com/album/souvs-ep
It's a 'pay what you can' download of the entire album, and I recommend you pay something. We all know that local musicians generally do not get paid for live shows, and don't get paid for their recordings, but actually have quite a few expenses. So if you love the music, support it in any way you can. Also, feel free to support the band when they play at the Electric Sloth Festival on June 24, 2010 in Borden Park. Remember Borden Park? Did your elementary school class ever go there for your end of the year party? It's the one with the ampitheater, wading pool and it's got the big swings.
Letters To The Editor
rbw2@ualberta.ca
I haven't actually received any letters yet. But send them to me, and I'll take them into consideration.
Last Week's Art
This was the background for last week's page. It includes, among other things, a Schlitz ad that says, "don't worry honey, you didn't burn the beer!" As well as a mustang replica ad of a model T ad. There's an ad for an Oldsmobile Hearse, and an incredibly bisexual-swinger type advertisement for the Opel Kaddett. This week's art is a tribute to the new 'Pepsi Throwback.' The story behind throwback goes like this. In about 1985, when Coke released New Coke; most soft drinks changed to high fructose corn syrup. It was in response to government tariffs on cane and cane sugar. Coke went back to its' coke classic after a short time, while Pepsi evolved to add citric acid and continued using HFCS. The Pepsi throwback might make you feel young again, like all diet Pepsi claims to do, simply by giving you the flavour you remember. Although made with real sugar, it actually contains 1 gram less sugar than standard Pepsi per serving. And the citric acid is gone too. Pepsi says they'll continue to sell it as long as people continue to demand it. Considering PC has to say 'limit 4 per customer' - I don't think that's going to be a problem.
Next Issue
Next issue is the (un)employment issue. Feel free to send in stories of unemployment and barely scraping by. We'll be joined by a few guest editors of fairly high fame who I am not going to yet disclose, just in case I don't receive anything from them. Read the next issue on Friday, June 17. By the way, our last issue got over 50 hits. Thanks readers! RSS or add us!
No comments:
Post a Comment